# Possible problem with reversed LaTeX definitions

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/possible-problem-with-reversed-latex-definitions/1525>\
**Category:** General Usage\
**Created:** [January 16, 2017, 6:00pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/possible-problem-with-reversed-latex-definitions/1525 "2017-01-16T18:00:28Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ScottPJones](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/scottpjones/32/146_2.png) [@ScottPJones](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ScottPJones)\
**Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 6:00pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/possible-problem-with-reversed-latex-definitions/1525/1 "2017-01-16T18:00:28Z")

</div>

I found that \upharpoonleft and \upharpoondown are reversed from their definitions for LaTeX, mathlatex, IEEE, and the unicode-math-table.tex.  
The script used to build Julia’s LaTeX symbol table gave priority to the AMS definitions, which are backwards from the rest.  
Should a PR be created to change latex\_symbols.jl to use the definitions used most everywhere?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![m-j-w](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/m-j-w/32/4541_2.png) [@m-j-w](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/m-j-w)\
**Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 4:01pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/possible-problem-with-reversed-latex-definitions/1525/2 "2017-01-17T16:01:44Z")

</div>

Yepp, they seem reversed. Checked my Julia versus my Latex output. A PR sounds quite reasonable.  
(and yes, at least I do care about LaTeX completion strings ;-). They are one of the most practical innovations ever to write mathematical code.)